JUDGMENT & ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. T. J. Sahewalla, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. M. Hazarika, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. M. K. Borah, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This second appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 05.04.2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Nagaon, Assam in Title Appeal No. 16(N)/2015 whereby the Judgment and decree dated 31.08.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Nagaon in Title Suit No. 19/2007 dismissing the suit of the Appellant, was upheld.

3. This court under its order dated 28.08.2018, admitted the present appeal on the following two substantial question of law:-

1. Whether the Exhibit-Tha sale deed No. 3081/2001 can be accepted to be an invalid one on the basis of the expert opinion vis-à-vis the evidence of the witnesses and the author of the said sale deed?

2. Whether the learned court below was correct in holding that the Exhibit- Tha is invalid on the basis of the opinion of the fingerprint expert and if not, whether the evidence on record is sufficient to hold that the Exhibit-Tha, sale deed is a valid one?

4. For the purpose of ascertaining, whether the said substantial question of law are involved in the present appeal, it would be relevant to take note of the facts leading the filing of the present second appeal.

5. The respondent/plaintiff preferred the Title Suit No. 19/2007 for cancellation of a sale deed (Schedule-A) and for declaration of right, title and interest of the plaintiff in respect of the Schedule-B land and recovery of possession of Schedule-B land.

6. The case of the plaintiff as projected and pleaded were to the following effect:

I. That the suit land originally belonged to the plaintiff and had acquired such title by virtue of gift and possession from her mother.

II. It is the case of the plaintiff that while the plaintiff was possessing the suit land, the defendant No. 2/ appellant, with some musclemen came to the suit land on 15.09.2006 and forcibly entered into the possession of the suit land and dispossessed the plaintiff. When the plaintiff protested with the help of her well wishers, the defendant No. 2, made it clear that he had purchased the suit land from the defendant No. 1.

III. Being helpless and unable to protest her dispossession from the suit land, she rushed to the Circle Officer at Hojai and obtained certified copy of the Jamabandi from the S.D.O, Civil at Hojai from which she came to know that the land was mutated in the name of defendant No. 2 by right of purchase of the said suit land from defendant No. 1. She also came to the know from the certified copy of the jamabandi that the said suit land was mutated in the name of defendant No. 1 by right of inheritance from one Robindra Nath Saha, the deceased husband of defendant No. 1.

IV. Thereafter, on an enquiry, the plaintiff came to know that somebody in her name executed a registered sale deed in respect of the said suit land. She sought help from the office of the Sub Registrar, Hojai, but she could not find any help. Thereafter, the plaintiff approached before the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon. Thereafter the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon immediately directed the Sub-Registrar, Hojai to furnish certified copies of 10 nos. of sale deeds by which it was shown that the plaintiff has sold the aforesaid land to the predecessor-in-interest of defendant No. 1.

V. After obtaining the sale deeds, she could find out that some other sale deeds which were executed by the defendant No. 1 in favour of the defendant No. 2/ appellant.

VI. The plaintiff pleaded that the defendant No. 1 did not have any right, title and interest to execute the sale deed in favour of the defendant No. 2/appellant inasmuch the sale deed through which it was shown that the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant No. 1 sold the land is fraudulent and the plaintiff has never executed such sale deed. Accordingly, the